Attachment '20130103_log.txt'

Download

   1 16:17:16 <API> #startmeeting
   2 16:17:16 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Jan  3 16:17:16 2013 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 16:17:16 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 16:17:25 <API> #topic W3c update
   5 16:17:41 <API> clown, your turn
   6 16:18:16 <clown> #info the first public working draft of the IndieUI spec will be published sometime in January.
   7 16:18:53 <clown> #info there is a chance it will be published by end of next week, but various people want to read the latest editor's draft before giving consent.
   8 16:19:03 <clown> #info editor's draft is here:  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndieUI/raw-file/tip/src/indie-ui-events.html
   9 16:19:19 <clown> any questions about that?
  10 16:20:03 * joanie pulls it up
  11 16:20:16 <API> well, probably in order to make questions we should read all that stuff
  12 16:20:26 * joanie nods
  13 16:20:31 * clown has yet to read it, himself...
  14 16:20:31 <joanie> so a meta question
  15 16:20:32 <API> and probably here and now is not the place and moment
  16 16:20:47 <joanie> if, having read it, we have questions or feedback
  17 16:20:49 <clown> well, my "questions" was any questions about those info's?
  18 16:20:58 <joanie> should we send them to the indie ui list?
  19 16:21:04 <joanie> or is this more or less an fyi
  20 16:21:16 <joanie> and pending final review of the work committee, this is getting published
  21 16:21:17 <joanie> period
  22 16:21:18 <joanie> ?
  23 16:21:31 <clown> you could send them to the indie ui list, since it is a public list.
  24 16:21:55 <clown> hmmm…  might be worthwhile describing the W3C process.
  25 16:22:25 <clown> first, there are editor's drafts — changes due to meetings of the working group.
  26 16:23:08 <clown> then there are public drafts, which are more "fixed", but still open to lots of modifications.  They are intended to get feedback from the larger community.
  27 16:23:17 <clown> there can be a sequence of public drafts.
  28 16:23:52 <clown> The next step is the "last call draft", where active solicitation of comments from the world at large is sought.
  29 16:24:35 <joanie> about how long (in terms of drafts or months) is it between the first public draft and the last call draft?
  30 16:24:36 <clown> after all comments on the LCD have been addressed, the spec moves to CR track (Candidate Recommendation).
  31 16:25:01 <clown> joanie, I'll try to answer that in a bit.
  32 16:25:24 <clown> During CR, one must show that at least two browsers implement the spec as stated.
  33 16:25:43 <clown> If so, the CR is moved to Recommendation, and become release 1.0
  34 16:26:19 <clown> in terms of first public draft and last call draft, the only spec I have personal experience with is the aria spec.
  35 16:27:26 <clown> the first public draft was circa 2006.  The first LC draft was early 2009.  The second LC draft  was fall 2009, and we began the CR track in early 2010 (and are still there).
  36 16:27:31 <clown> (done).
  37 16:27:42 <joanie> thanks
  38 16:27:49 <joanie> I have additional questions
  39 16:28:07 <joanie> does two browsers mean two browsers or two web rendering engines?
  40 16:28:25 <joanie> i.e. if there's firefox and another gecko-based browser, is that 2?
  41 16:28:31 <clown> yes, it's better to say two web rendering engines.
  42 16:28:36 <joanie> k
  43 16:28:47 <joanie> and two per platform or .... ?
  44 16:28:51 <clown> so, webkit and gecko.  or webkit and IE
  45 16:29:22 <clown> not sure what you mean by platform.
  46 16:29:32 <joanie> windows, mac, linux
  47 16:29:42 <joanie> i.e. if it's in gecko and ie for windows
  48 16:29:49 <joanie> and nowhere on the mac or linux
  49 16:29:56 <joanie> do you have your two?
  50 16:30:55 <clown> this partially answers your question:  I've been testing aria in FF (gecko) on linux/at-spi.  IBM has been testing FF on windows/IA2.  Some have complained that doesn't count as two separate implemenations.  More like 1.5 implementations.
  51 16:31:30 <clown> but, yes, it it's in gecko and ie for windows, that would suffice for the W3C.
  52 16:31:39 <joanie> ok
  53 16:31:40 <joanie> thanks
  54 16:31:44 <clown> welcome
  55 16:32:22 <API> ok, so anything else in this point ?
  56 16:32:42 <clown> only other thing I have is more of a question about toggle buttons.
  57 16:32:49 <clown> and aria question.
  58 16:32:55 <clown> "an" aria question.
  59 16:33:38 <API> clown, shot
  60 16:33:43 <clown> currently you specifiy that an html element is a toggle button using the aria-pressed attribute.
  61 16:34:17 <clown> e.g.  <span role="button" aria-pressed='false'>  is mapped to a toggle button in the a11y api (e.g., AT-SPI).
  62 16:34:36 <clown> that particular toggle button is not pressed (or not toggled).
  63 16:35:37 <clown> the user agent implementation guide says (1) that this should be exposed with ROLE_TOGGLE_BUTTON, (2) with STATE_TOGGLED (if it is toggled), and (3) object attribute checkable:true.
  64 16:35:54 <clown> It's the (3) that some people are complaining about.
  65 16:36:09 <joanie> API recently did this implementation in WebKit
  66 16:36:19 <clown> pardon me, "STATE_PRESSED".
  67 16:36:32 <clown> with respect to (2)
  68 16:36:43 <clown> API?
  69 16:36:53 <API> clown, well about 3
  70 16:37:17 <API> on atk/at-spi we don't have the state checkable
  71 16:37:32 <joanie> and a toggle button is not checkable
  72 16:37:36 <API> people complaining are sying that we should have that state?
  73 16:37:45 <joanie> API that's probably why it's an object attribute
  74 16:37:52 <API> and joanie comment is also true
  75 16:37:53 <clown> right, which is why the UAIG says to put it in as an *object attribute*
  76 16:37:59 <joanie> but it's a silly object attribute
  77 16:38:14 <clown> yes, API, some nvda people are complaining that it's tripping them up.
  78 16:38:25 * API also wonders about that "people" complaining, which people?
  79 16:38:34 <joanie> btw, piling stuff into object attributes rather than creating the appropriate API is (imho) not good
  80 16:38:38 <clown> James Teh, actually
  81 16:38:46 * clown doesn't really know who Jame Teh is.
  82 16:39:00 <API> but you know what James Teh do?
  83 16:39:04 <API> webkit develper?
  84 16:39:10 * clown looks.
  85 16:39:12 <API> w3c guy?
  86 16:39:15 <joanie> James is one of the two NVDA project leads
  87 16:39:26 <joanie> he is the one who does the web support in NVDA
  88 16:39:49 <joanie> and he tends to be right on most things in my experience
  89 16:39:53 <clown> here is the bugzilla he filed against FF:  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=825114
  90 16:39:53 <tota11y> 04Bug 825114: normal, --, ---, nobody, NEW , Checkable state should not be exposed for ARIA buttons with aria-pressed
  91 16:40:09 <joanie> and checkable state is for checkbuttons and radio buttons
  92 16:40:13 <joanie> a toggle button is not checked
  93 16:40:20 <clown> note that he has it slightly wrong in that it's not a checkable *state*, but an object property.
  94 16:40:39 <joanie> checkable anything is for checkbuttons and radio buttons
  95 16:41:05 <clown> or is it for any two-state widget?  (just wondering).
  96 16:41:09 <API> ok, so now I have all the information, but I'm somewhat lost
  97 16:41:17 <API> clown, you raised this discussion because ...
  98 16:41:18 <joanie> checkbuttons can actually have three states
  99 16:41:18 <clown> actually, pressed can be on, off and mixed.
 100 16:41:26 <API> you want the opinion from atk/at-spi developers?
 101 16:41:33 <API> or it is just a fyi
 102 16:41:33 <clown> sure.
 103 16:41:46 <API> well as joanie said
 104 16:41:53 <API> (3) is somewhat weird
 105 16:41:54 <joanie> my opinion is that checkable should not be exposed for toggle buttons
 106 16:41:55 <joanie> not as a state
 107 16:41:59 <joanie> not as an attribute
 108 16:42:01 <API> because a toggle button is not a checkable thing
 109 16:42:05 <joanie> toggle buttons are not checked
 110 16:42:06 <joanie> period
 111 16:42:08 <joanie> :)
 112 16:42:20 <joanie> or to put it another way, James is right
 113 16:42:44 <clown> I suspect (gut feeling), it's there because there is no "toggle-able" state or object property, and they didn't want to create a new one.
 114 16:42:58 <joanie> clown: which gets back to what I was saying earlier
 115 16:43:02 <joanie> way the heck back
 116 16:43:04 <API> that sounds like a lazy answer :P
 117 16:43:14 <joanie> when this aria-pressed thing first came up
 118 16:43:20 <clown> oh, it's not answer, just a stab in the dark.
 119 16:43:24 <joanie> the thing to do was ask James and Me
 120 16:43:28 <API> I'm not calling you lazy, but the ones wanted to reuse checkable insted of define toggle-able
 121 16:43:29 <joanie> and other such developers
 122 16:43:42 <joanie> and we could have said back then
 123 16:43:45 <joanie> what we are now
 124 16:43:46 <joanie> namely
 125 16:43:52 <joanie> 1. Checked doesn't apply
 126 16:43:57 <joanie> 2. We need some API for pressed
 127 16:44:13 <joanie> and we could have then implemented that API addition in IA2 and ATK/AT-SPI2
 128 16:44:31 <joanie> but that didn't happen
 129 16:44:38 <joanie> so now we have these silly object attributes
 130 16:44:54 <joanie> and have to try to bring implementors into alignment
 131 16:44:59 <joanie> so that they use the same attributes
 132 16:45:00 <clown> okay, I'm not sure about 2 (I'm really completely on the fence about this whole thing) — why do we even need checkable for checkboxes?
 133 16:45:26 <joanie> the way orca uses it is:
 134 16:45:27 <clown> isn't the fact that it's a checkbox entail it's checkable?
 135 16:45:32 <joanie> if an object has state checkable
 136 16:45:48 <joanie> then it is worth presenting "checked" or "not checked" when it gets focus
 137 16:46:04 <joanie> so the user knows whether or not he/she wants to toggle it with the space bar
 138 16:46:15 <clown> if an object is a checkbox, then it will have state checked, unchecked, or mixed, no?
 139 16:46:17 <joanie> or in the case of radio buttons by arrowing to it
 140 16:46:32 <joanie> we don't have state unchecked
 141 16:46:37 <joanie> if we had a state unchecked, sure
 142 16:46:47 <clown> right, it's bit flag sort of.
 143 16:47:00 <clown> either STATE_CHECKED is set of cleared.
 144 16:47:05 <clown> "or" cleared.
 145 16:47:10 <joanie> and if state checked is cleared
 146 16:47:25 <joanie> then we can only look to the role
 147 16:47:37 <joanie> if someone creates a new widget called a foo
 148 16:47:38 <API> clown, the fact is that without checkable we don't know if an object can be checked or not
 149 16:47:48 <API> except for the role, and sometimes its not clear
 150 16:47:58 <clown> right, and role is there is it not?
 151 16:48:06 <joanie> for instance
 152 16:48:08 <joanie> check menu items
 153 16:48:19 <joanie> often those lack the check menu item role
 154 16:48:22 <joanie> and just have menu item
 155 16:48:27 <clown> why?
 156 16:48:29 <API> clown, but as I said sometimes it is not clear just from the role all the states he can get
 157 16:48:32 <joanie> but the fact that it has state checkable
 158 16:48:43 <joanie> tells us that the menu item is something we can toggle
 159 16:49:06 <joanie> and the fact that state checked is absent in a menu item
 160 16:49:13 <clown> not toggle — only toggle buttons are toggle-able (according to you).
 161 16:49:13 <joanie> is noteworthy
 162 16:49:15 <API> in that sense mac a11y has the advantage that for any role, it explicitly specifies which states can be set
 163 16:49:29 <API> although not sure if this is a code thing (so forced) or just a documentationthing
 164 16:49:30 <joanie> clown I am typing quickly without proofreading
 165 16:50:02 <clown> still, it's kind of telling:  what is the difference between toggled and checked?
 166 16:50:35 * clown apologizes for arguing both sides of the issue, but I really don't have an opinon yet.
 167 16:51:08 <joanie> ok
 168 16:51:11 <joanie> there is toggled
 169 16:51:14 <joanie> there is pressed
 170 16:51:16 <joanie> there is checked
 171 16:51:24 <clown> there is expanded
 172 16:51:24 <joanie> toggle buttons can be pressed or not pressed
 173 16:51:31 <joanie> checkboxes can be checked or not checked
 174 16:51:43 <joanie> expanded does not apply to buttons that are not menus
 175 16:51:53 <clown> it applies to tabs.
 176 16:51:57 <joanie> so as I was saying
 177 16:52:04 * joanie backs up
 178 16:52:15 * clown shuts up.
 179 16:52:16 <joanie> Assumption one: The widgets under consideration are
 180 16:52:19 <joanie> 1. checkbuttons
 181 16:52:22 <joanie> 2. radio buttons
 182 16:52:26 <joanie> 3. push buttons
 183 16:52:30 <joanie> 4. toggle buttons
 184 16:53:17 <joanie> Assumption two: The states under consideration -- where states here means expression of condition and not an API official exposure
 185 16:53:22 <joanie> are
 186 16:53:25 <joanie> 1. toggled
 187 16:53:27 <joanie> 2. pressed
 188 16:53:30 <joanie> 3. checked
 189 16:53:36 <joanie> Given the above two assumptions
 190 16:53:44 <joanie> I would suggest for your consideration
 191 16:53:45 <joanie> that
 192 16:53:54 <joanie> toggle buttons can be pressed or not pressed
 193 16:54:07 <joanie> checkboxes and radio buttons can be checked or not checked
 194 16:54:20 <joanie> and that toggle is an action
 195 16:54:24 <joanie> that describes
 196 16:54:33 <joanie> changing the state from pressed to not pressed and vice versa
 197 16:54:43 <joanie> and changing the state from pressed to not pressed and vice versa
 198 16:54:50 <joanie> under these conditions
 199 16:54:55 <joanie> James is right
 200 16:55:07 <joanie> and the toggle button should not claim in any fashion
 201 16:55:16 <joanie> be that a state or an object attribute or a catchy tune
 202 16:55:19 <joanie> that it is checkec
 203 16:55:22 <joanie> or checked
 204 16:55:26 * joanie is finished
 205 16:55:43 <clown> a question:
 206 16:56:40 <clown> based on the above, I infer that checked (or checkable) applies only ever to checkboxes and radio buttons (and also check box menuitems and radio button menuitems).  Correct?
 207 16:57:16 <joanie> I would say that of the list of roles you specify
 208 16:57:27 <joanie> that checked/checkable applies to them
 209 16:57:35 <joanie> but given some hypothetical role foo
 210 16:57:40 <joanie> that we have not conceived of
 211 16:57:52 <joanie> foo might also be a candidate for checked/checkable
 212 16:58:00 <joanie> as long as foo ain't a toggle button
 213 16:58:11 <joanie> or a widget behaving like a toggle button
 214 16:59:01 * API realizes that it is about end-meeting time
 215 16:59:05 <clown> well, there is a relatively new kid on the block, the "switch", which visually slides on/off, and show "on" or "off" depending on its state.
 216 16:59:14 <API> well guys, this became too long for the meeting (imho)
 217 16:59:23 <clown> yeah, you're right.
 218 16:59:31 <API> and during the process I remembered some points that it would be good to talk about
 219 16:59:32 <API> soo
 220 16:59:38 <clown> is that switch checkable?  or toggle-able?  or somthing else-able?
 221 16:59:47 <joanie> the switch is checkable
 222 17:00:02 <joanie> and that's what we've done in gnome-shell, right API?
 223 17:00:04 <clown> and yet it's called a toggle switch on Mac.
 224 17:00:06 <API> the compromise could be discuss this on the IRC/mailing list and resume the meeting on a different point
 225 17:00:20 <clown> sure.
 226 17:00:24 <API> joanie, yes I think so
 227 17:00:36 <API> although I would need to see the code to confirm that
 228 17:00:39 <API> can do that later
 229 17:00:54 <joanie> in gnome, the switch basically took the role of checkbox when the item under consideration is a service
 230 17:00:59 <joanie> I think that's even documented somewhere
 231 17:01:09 <API> yes I think so
 232 17:01:24 <API> I remind some designers document that I used as base
 233 17:01:27 <joanie> anyhhhhhoooo getting back to the original/non-deep dive
 234 17:01:37 <clown> sorry...
 235 17:01:45 <joanie> this is why I think we need more input early on from more parties
 236 17:01:54 <joanie> so we can get more stuff right
 237 17:02:02 <joanie> rather than have to later file bugs asking for changes
 238 17:02:03 <clown> this spec has been around since 2009 or earlier…  (just sayin')
 239 17:02:19 <joanie> clown: and were James and I asked about it?
 240 17:02:31 <clown> specifically?  dunno.
 241 17:02:37 <joanie> because if we were asked about it, I bet you would have gotten the same opinion back then
 242 17:02:39 <clown> but it wasn't hidden.
 243 17:02:50 <joanie> but when you have a billion other things to do
 244 17:02:56 <clown> yeah, I know.
 245 17:03:06 <joanie> looking around for things you might -- just might -- need to weigh in on
 246 17:03:10 <joanie> is kinda tough
 247 17:03:16 <clown> and the spec is "big -ish"
 248 17:04:10 <joanie> so only people who can afford to invest staff time weigh in
 249 17:04:30 <joanie> and some of those people might represent companies (say 1200 screen reader companies) who have an agenda
 250 17:05:05 <joanie> I won't call the system fully broken, but I do think it could be tweaked a tad
 251 17:05:35 <clown> perhaps what we are doing now is the beginning of such a tweak.
 252 17:06:01 <joanie> indeed
 253 17:06:03 <joanie> :)
 254 17:06:06 <joanie> we should do more of it
 255 17:06:09 <clown> thanks for all the input.
 256 17:06:10 <joanie> but not at meetings
 257 17:06:20 <API> and using that last sentence
 258 17:06:21 <joanie> otherwise API will kill me
 259 17:06:25 <joanie> :)
 260 17:06:30 <API> could we move to next point and assume
 261 17:06:48 <API> that we will find other moment to resume the prevoius conversation if it is worth?
 262 17:07:18 <clown> sure, API
 263 17:07:29 <API> ok lets do that
 264 17:07:33 <API> #topic JAW update
 265 17:08:02 <API> #info API sent that jaw asking mail, and we have a brief (but not public) chat with Peter Korn
 266 17:08:30 <API> #info we don't have new information since then, but Peter told us that he would contact the proper people
 267 17:08:45 <API> #info meanwhile, an oracle worker sent a email to orca-list
 268 17:08:48 * API looking
 269 17:09:09 <API> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/orca-list/2012-December/msg00180.html
 270 17:09:39 <joanie> s/an oracle worker/the former orca project manager from the Sun APO who knows what Orca is and that linux ain't windows/
 271 17:10:11 <API> #info talking about Window Java bridge on a orca list, so that seems to suggest that right now Linux is not at their priority list
 272 17:10:22 <API> yes joanie comment adds more information here
 273 17:10:26 <joanie> ;)
 274 17:10:30 <API> sooo
 275 17:10:51 <API> #info seems really unlikely to get some kind of actions from oracle with respect to jaw
 276 17:11:14 <jjmarin> :(
 277 17:11:18 <API> #info some of the more popular java based programs are "accessible enough"
 278 17:11:23 <API> #info like eclipse
 279 17:11:31 <API> #info in spite of not having jaw
 280 17:11:33 <joanie> #info Joanie yesterday discovered that not only does JAW not build, but it's still expecting GNOME 2 stuff
 281 17:11:56 <API> #info so next question is: should we just assume that JAW is dead or do something with JAW?
 282 17:12:02 <joanie> #info Eclipse and its widgets are accessible because they have their own a11y implementation that mirrors GAIL
 283 17:12:10 <API> #info do we have people resources to do something with Jaw?
 284 17:12:27 <API> we are not a lot of people today
 285 17:12:33 <API> so not sure if we are in the position to answer that
 286 17:12:42 <joanie> but I think we should be mulling it over
 287 17:12:53 <API> so probably it is better to do the fyi here, and think about it
 288 17:12:56 <joanie> because it's a tough question
 289 17:12:59 * joanie nods
 290 17:13:00 <joanie> exactly
 291 17:13:04 * API looking if mulling is what API is saying
 292 17:13:10 <joanie> API yup
 293 17:13:23 * API have a friend on wordreference
 294 17:13:24 <API> ok
 295 17:13:29 <API> so, questions doubts comments?
 296 17:13:44 * jjmarin wonders if IBM eclipse people can help on this
 297 17:13:51 <joanie> no
 298 17:14:09 <joanie> I mean, why would they want to improve a competing java implementation
 299 17:14:13 <joanie> when theirs is accessible
 300 17:14:27 <clown> right eclipse uses SWT, which is a "native" widget in the long run.
 301 17:15:19 <joanie> I would think the IBM folks would love to see the Oracle Java Swing toolkit die
 302 17:15:29 <jjmarin> ok
 303 17:15:39 <joanie> doesn't mean it's not a good idea in spirit
 304 17:15:44 <clown> yes, there is a reason it's called "eclipse".
 305 17:15:53 <joanie> just that in this particular case it ain't gonna happen
 306 17:17:16 <API> not a lot of discussion
 307 17:17:19 <API> here
 308 17:17:24 <API> (something that was not the prupose)
 309 17:17:32 <API> but as we need to think about it
 310 17:17:50 <API> #action API will send a mail answering his own mail about the same conclusions shared on the meeting
 311 17:17:54 <API> so, moving?
 312 17:18:01 <API> (to next topic)
 313 17:18:42 <jjmarin> Does SWT use gtk+2 ?
 314 17:19:18 * clown doesn't know enough about the nitty gritty details...
 315 17:19:49 <jjmarin> sorry for the collateral question
 316 17:19:51 * API neither
 317 17:20:00 <API> jjmarin, congratulations, you have a new action!
 318 17:20:06 <API> investigate your own question!
 319 17:20:07 <API> :P
 320 17:20:09 <joanie> jjmarin: it doesn't
 321 17:20:13 <joanie> to my knowledge
 322 17:20:17 <API> or not
 323 17:20:20 <joanie> as I mentioned earlier
 324 17:20:22 <jjmarin> I can do that :)
 325 17:20:29 <joanie> they have their own accessibility implementation
 326 17:20:37 <joanie> that parallels what Gtk+ does
 327 17:20:43 <joanie> it claims to be GAIL
 328 17:20:53 <joanie> where as Gtk+ now claims to be Gtk+
 329 17:21:06 <joanie> it looks like Gtk+ 2
 330 17:21:11 <joanie> and how that happens I dunno
 331 17:21:26 <joanie> but my understanding is the a11y stuff (i.e. what we care about) is pure them
 332 17:21:29 <joanie> and not gtk
 333 17:22:29 <API> soo
 334 17:22:36 <API> as nobody is talking now, I will move
 335 17:22:50 <API> (what at the begining was a short meeting became a long one, impressive)
 336 17:23:18 <API> #topic Q3
 337 17:23:25 <API> this was whispered by joanie
 338 17:23:48 <joanie> #info The talk on either the Foundation and/or Marketing lists suggests that there will not be a Q3
 339 17:23:50 <API> seems that we are not going to have q3 reports
 340 17:24:00 * API "shut upping"
 341 17:24:08 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo has posted to the Foundation list about having reports for each release instead of quarterly reports. It seems it gets harder and harder to get the quarterly reports in time (the a11y is always on of the most responsive, even when we are late). I think that part of the problem is that the quarterly reports doen't feet very well into the release cycles. Let's see what is going on.
 342 17:24:09 <joanie> #info There has been recent suggestions that the Quarterlies become more tied to release cycles
 343 17:24:17 * joanie shuts up too
 344 17:24:44 <jjmarin> shutting down here :)
 345 17:25:41 <jjmarin> next thing ?
 346 17:26:10 <API> unless someone has questions or doubts (I don't), my plan is move to next topic....
 347 17:27:17 <clown> regarding the previous topic, I couln't help but google — according to wikipedia, SWT uses GTK+ on Linux.  Take that with a grain of salt, I suppose.
 348 17:27:24 <clown> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Widget_Toolkit
 349 17:27:28 <API> it seems that there are not about this
 350 17:27:38 <API> clown, thanks for the information (will take a look later)
 351 17:27:45 <clown> no problem.
 352 17:27:54 <API> #topic webkit2 and 3.8
 353 17:28:03 <joanie> if they use Gtk+ on linux
 354 17:28:15 <joanie> shouldn't the widgets act like Gtk+ a11y wize
 355 17:28:16 <joanie> ?
 356 17:28:25 <clown> indeed.
 357 17:28:30 <joanie> s/like/exactly like/
 358 17:28:36 <API> #info for 3.8 webkitgtk developers are planning to move to webkit2
 359 17:28:59 <API> #info this is a major change, and although we should also be aware/vigilant about regressions
 360 17:29:35 <API> #info it is also important to note that they implied that they are going to stick to specific library versions, or more specifically, APIs
 361 17:29:51 <API> #info in that sense if would be somewhat difficult to add new APIs after that release
 362 17:30:39 <API> #info ATK developers (me and Joanie as Orca is main user) is taking that into account for APIs like AtkCollection, an old would-like-to-have, that probably should be speeded up now
 363 17:30:48 <API> (done)
 364 17:31:00 <API> this is basically a FYI, in relation to new API to be added
 365 17:31:16 <API> as seems that 3.8 would be a harder deadline with respect to what we thought
 366 17:31:22 <API> doubts, comments, questions=
 367 17:31:24 <API> ?
 368 17:31:31 <jjmarin> It sounds this change will be for better :)
 369 17:32:48 <API> every change are supposed to be for better :P
 370 17:32:54 <API> lets see what happens
 371 17:33:30 <joanie> some changes are not
 372 17:34:17 <API> well, it seems that are not a lot of questions
 373 17:34:21 <API> anyway,
 374 17:34:42 <API> #action API, for the same quorum-reason that before, will send a mail to igalia-accessibility-devel about this
 375 17:34:50 <API> and as there are no questions
 376 17:34:58 <API> #topic Miscellaneous time
 377 17:35:21 <API> anything not scheduled and short to talk about?
 378 17:37:28 * clown crickets.
 379 17:37:32 <API> well, today we spoke a lot
 380 17:37:55 <API> lets finish the meeting and lets catch crickets as when we were kids
 381 17:38:01 <API> so thanks everybody
 382 17:38:05 <API> #endmeeting

Attached Files

To refer to attachments on a page, use attachment:filename, as shown below in the list of files. Do NOT use the URL of the [get] link, since this is subject to change and can break easily.
  • [get | view] (2013-01-23 18:38:43, 23.6 KB) [[attachment:20130103_log.txt]]

You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.